poll: majority Israelis and Palestinians want the "Clinton Plan" borders

[Sumud]

Sumud
I am not hung up about Walid. But you also discounted people like Irshad Manji, Brigitte Gabriel and Nonnie Darwish, even though they are Muslim and/or Arab and their opinions and views definitely have relevance. Walid Shoebat's views (a Palestinian) too should have relevance although I don't expect you to agree with all their views. In fact, their views may or may not even be correct, the fact is that these views actually exist, these views are not figments of my imagination and they are not expressed by people from a group who could be accused of being biased against Palestinians. So, my contention is that such views (right or wrong) are LIKELY to exist among a small minority of Palestinians in the WB and/or Gaza. So why can't we hear about it?

Your contention is that such views are illogical therefore they cannot exist. That's what I am challenging. If you just said that THEY DON't exist, I would just disagree with you but we could not continue to argue about it because neither one of us could prove the other wrong, unless of course such views would actually be found in the WB and Gaza.

My contention is that your argument is illogical.

Someone is America says "X", therefore someone living in Gaza or the WB Palestine must have the same opinion, and you must be told about it.

[Sumud]

That's a very smug statement from you. But a logical rebuttal from you would be more convincing.

You've made sweeping statments about what views do exist and should exist in Palestinain society, but then display a complete lack of knowledge about prominent figures.

You base your opinoins on what you don't know, which is a risky proposition. Scant knowledge and strong opinions have a strange affinity for each other.

[zionistguy]

What exists or does not exist in terms of public opinion in Palestinian or any other society is elusive. A recent set of polls in the USA showed that Americans either strongly support or strongly oppose Israeli disengagement. It depends on who asked the questions and what people were asked.

It may also depend on when they are asked.

In Palestinian society there is also a strong social drive for unity as well as active sanctions applied to people who do not conform. I don't think that Summud can deny that Sari Nusseibeh for example exists, or claim that there are no Palestinians whatever who are willing to admit their share in the blame of history, or that no Palestinians whatever support the Geneva Accord or the One Voice initiative. Perhaps the problem is that someone like Nusseibeh is immediately singled out by the fanatics of BADIL and labeled as a "traitor" and the Palestinains who signed the Geneva Accords were nearly lynched in Gaza. That is the way uniformity of opinion, or the appearance thereof, is enforced.

If you can demonstrate that really every Palestinian rejects the existence of Israel and insists that the evil Zionists simply threw them out for no reason, then you will win the argument. On the other hand, if you demonstrate that that is so, then you condemn both our peoples to eternal struggle. Consider the consequences of that policy until now. I think that some leaders have understood that and are working in a different direction - there is hope for peace.

However, there is still a big historical mythology on both sides and a big gap between what the sides want to admit. On the Israeli side (or rather mostly among right-wing Zionists living abroad) there are still people who believe there were no Arabs living here a hundred years ago, based on Joan Peters. Dershowitz seems to believe it. And there are many who insist that everything that was done by Zionists was "pure as the driven snow." In Israel there are less people with these views I think.

The Israeli "revisionist" or "new" historians have not been refuted, but most of them did not say what Palestinians think they said. Many people were surprised when Benny Morris turned out to be a fairly right-wing Zionist in his views. However, if you had read his entire writings, instead of just bits and pieces quoted out of context in propaganda articles or in Avi Shlaim's very bad book, "Iron Wall" or by Ilan Pappe, you would have understood that Morris was NOT an uncritical supporter of the Palestinian cause out to unmask "greedy, evil, Zionists" (the last phrase is a quote from a book review that appeared in Jordan Times).

Revisionist historians mostly told Israelis what they already knew. It may or may not be that all this was secret knowledge in some archives that were opened for the first time. For example, everyone in Israel who knew anything about history always knew about Deir Yassin but didn't want to think about it. There was even an article about it in the early seventies in Yediot Ahronot. The revisionist historians also created a few myths of their own, such as the myth about Plan Daled invented by Ilan Pappe (I think) and the myth about Latrun. (see http://www.mideastweb.org/latrun.htm ) Likewise, the out of context or fabricated "Zionist" quotes that populate Web sites like Palestine Remembered and Miftah give a very distorted picture of Zionist ideology and aims. For some real Zionist quotes that may surprise you, see http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionist_quotes.htm .

Morris was responsible for a lot of the "Zionist" quotes about "transfer" that are circulating. However, his apparent agenda was not, it turns out, to discredit Zionism, but to try to fake a case that transfer was always part of the Zionist program - it was not. He did his work by artfully exploiting the 1937 discussion of the Peel plan, and failing to mention that the transfer was a British idea, and that the Zionists were willing to entertain this idea because the Peel plan would give the Jews only a very tiny state within Israel.

There is also a tendency to confuse revisionist historians with anti-Zionists. It is one thing to say that Deir Yassin happened. It is quite a different thing to say that all of Zionism is all about Deir Yassin and nothing else, which is what people like Ilan Pappe would have you believe.

On the other hand, the Palestinians created their own mythology. In that mythology, Haj Amin El Husseini was a big patriot and humanitarian. Maybe he went to Germany for a health cure. There is no mention of the fact that Husseini was a Nazi, that he organized SS units, was a friend of Eichmann or that he was quite open about the fact that he wanted to wipe out the Jews of Palestine just as Hitler did in Europe. It was the Mufti who popularized the myth that the Zionists were disposessing the Arabs of Palestine during the mandate. And the Palestinians believe it, even though Zionist settlement coincided (not by accident) with a tremendous rise in the population and standard of living of the Arabs of Palestine. So in the Palestinian mythology, they were all just minding their own business in 1948, when suddenly and for no reason, the Jews of Palestine turned on them and kicked them all out of their houses and land. There is no mention of any threat of genocide to the Jews. In fact, the threat is converted into a mythical Zionist plan for disposessing the Arabs of Palestine - embodied in Plan Dalet. I doubt if many who believe this have actually read Plan Dalet. You will find it and many other documents at http://www.mideastweb.org/history.htm.

It is very difficult to dispel these different myths, because there is a great motivation by partisans of either side to spread them, and very little motivation to refute them, and because when presented with the whole truth, people pick and choose only the parts they like. I wrote a history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict at http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm . It is a work in the making. With help from friends, I go to great lengths to make sure that this history presents a reasonably balanced picture - the Mufti and his riots are there and Deir Yassin is also there. Unfortunately, I find references to this history on the Web that say "See even the Zionists admit there were massacres" - that is all that person got out of the whole thing, because it is all they were looking for.

More of my views about peace and Zionism are at different Web sites:

MidEastWeb for Coexistence - Middle East Conflict News, views, history, maps...

Zionism and Israel Information Center

PeaceWatch

Zionism and Israel on the Web

and links thereof.

[MGB8]

In other words, Sumud says that it is illogical to believe that somewhere in WB/GS someone would hold those views, because why? maybe because he is arguing that all Pal Arabs think alike, and the rules of diversity of thought don't apply? That... but he would more likely retreat into his earlier argument, that the Arab narrative is true and therefor any hard criticism of that narrative is illogical. Given that the Arab narrative is a bunch of exagerrations and lies, twisting some truths for political objectives, dealing with Sumud is hopeless. The best you can get with his type would be an agreement for a hudna, to be abandoned when they feel like it so that they can continue to attempt to "correct the historic injustice/tragedy that was the creation of Israel." Still no recognition that the creation of partition Israel required no displacement of people (only claims and aspirations) nor of ANY responsibility and accountability on the Arab part for their attempts at genocide and general beligerence.

If the best you can get is a hudna, then the best course of action is in fact total war. Expulsion looks better and better. After all, if its never going to be land for peace, then why give them any land. They certainly have no absolute "right" to it, just claims - something that they don't understand. Keep the land, there will be war either way, might as well be in a better strategic position.

And, frankly, that is where I see things going in the future. The Pal Arabs will be given gaza. Then, over time, they will contain there murderous sentiments just enough to be given that 90-92% of the WB. Then they will declare war again... and then, after this time, there will be very few Pal Arabs left in the WB/GS, and a whole lot more Arab refugees.

[MGB8]

The problem with Deir Yassin is not that something happened, but that the happening was a knowing exagerretion (ala Jenin) - see the thread (Deir Yassin was a Fraud, say the Arabs!)

[MGB8]

I read your history, Zionist guy. While it does report (a compilation) of others histories, it involves a lot of speculation as to motives, the trademark of Israeli revisionists (as opposed to describing what was said and done and in what context of facts) and also, it does not mention UNRWA's method for deciding who was or wasn't a refugee (the reason to doubt the UN's numbers.)

[Reffo]

My contention is that your argument is illogical.

Someone is America says "X", therefore someone living in Gaza or the WB Palestine must have the same opinion, and you must be told about it.

Sumud, I don't want to put it this way, but you are forcing me to!

YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT, BUT YOU ARE ACTING LIKE ONE!!!!!!

We have been through this already. I am talking about even opinions that you conceded to me (below) which would not be tolerated. Just show me anyone in Gaza or the WB who openly expresses such sentiments.

What about your obsession of reality that:

• Palestinians are the ONLY wronged victims
• Palestinians/Arabs did not start any wars, not even in 1947/48
• Egypt and Syria were not the ones who were responsible for the 1967 war
• It is wrong for Israel to retaliate against indiscriminate terrorism against it's civilians.
• Even though the Arabs/Palestinians openly and publicly threatened to drive the Jews into the sea (in other words: Commit Genocide), they did not mean this and it's just Jewish paranoia.

Well, you certainly said some of it and I had a strong impression that you intimated th rest. However, by all means, if I am wrong then I will apologise if you just tell me if you disagree with any or all of the above items.

Well, my opionion, on those is;
No.
No.
No.
No.
That wouldn’t be a massive sweeping statement would it? All of them? No.

Are you saying that there are no open minded people like you in Gaza and the WB? If not, then show me some of them. It's possible that they openly say this and I am ignorant enough to have missed them (it would not be the first or last misconception in my life, I am prepared to admit mistakes). Just show them to me and show me that they are allowed to speak freely without getting harmed for their views!

[Mira]

Found some good stats on repatriation of refugees:

"Palestinian refugees have been systematically encouraged to demand the right to return to old homes which, in a physical sense, disappeared decades ago.

The Table below gives approximate figures of refugees from different countries who, since 1945, have been resettled elsewhere. World opinion has accepted the terms of their resettlement, and in no instance has there been any outside backing of a 'return' to the former homeland. Any such return has, in fact, been castigated as the worst kind of irredentism.

* India / Pakistan - 15 million
* Finland - 400,000
* Czechoslovakia - 1.5 million
* Poland - 2.8 million
* East Germany - 7.5 million
* DDR - 3.8 million
* Roumania - 1.2 million

This, of course, is an incomplete list. There have been a great many other movements of refugees, of a minor nature. But this short list indicates that up to 35 million refugees have been successfully absorbed in the countries in which they have found refuge. In no single case has a claim to repatriation been supported, let alone upheld."

1973 Terence Prittie, The Palestinians: People, History, Politics

[Sumud]

Sumud, I don't want to put it this way, but you are forcing me to!

YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT, BUT YOU ARE ACTING LIKE ONE!!!!!!

Ouch.

We have been through this already. I am talking about even opinions that you conceded to me (below) which would not be tolerated. Just show me anyone in Gaza or the WB who openly expresses such sentiments.
Are you saying that there are no open minded people like you in Gaza and the WB? If not, then show me some of them. ..

I've shown you some. You just don't like them, because they must say precisely what you think they should be saying, according to what is your definition of what constitutes 'open-minded'..

[Reffo]

Ouch.

Sorry Sumud but you were going around in circles and I gave you lots of opportunities to finish this on a note of agreeing to disagree which would have been more civilised.

I've shown you some. You just don't like them, because they must say precisely what you think they should be saying, according to what is your definition of what constitutes 'open-minded'..

Yes but they have said less than you have admitted and they have been jailed even for their lesser comments. So my point stands, where are the people who openly admit even the points the you admitted? Or are you saying that there are no people in the WB and Gaza who are open minded? Can you give me some links to prove that they can speak openly?

[Sumud]

Sorry Sumud but you were going around in circles and I gave you lots of opportunities to finish this on a note of agreeing to disagree which would have been more civilised.

Excuse me for being picky, but I think I said as much right at the start of this part of the conversation (about 290 posts ago ).

Yes but they have said less than you have admitted and they have been jailed even for their lesser comments. So my point stands, where are the people who openly admit even the points the you admitted? Or are you saying that there are no people in the WB and Gaza who are open minded? Can you give me some links to prove that they can speak openly?

The only thing you seem to wnat to hear is someone say - it's all the Palestinans fault.

[Reffo]

The only thing you seem to wnat to hear is someone say - it's all the Palestinans fault.

No, I would be happy if yo could show me just one or two people from the WB or Gaza who just openly say what you said and who live to tell the tale. Or are you saying that you are the only person of Arab/Palestinian extraction with such opinions?

What about your obsession of reality that:

• Palestinians are the ONLY wronged victims
• Palestinians/Arabs did not start any wars, not even in 1947/48
• Egypt and Syria were not the ones who were responsible for the 1967 war
• It is wrong for Israel to retaliate against indiscriminate terrorism against it's civilians.
• Even though the Arabs/Palestinians openly and publicly threatened to drive the Jews into the sea (in other words: Commit Genocide), they did not mean this and it's just Jewish paranoia.

Well, you certainly said some of it and I had a strong impression that you intimated th rest. However, by all means, if I am wrong then I will apologise if you just tell me if you disagree with any or all of the above items.

Well, my opionion, on those is;
No.
No.
No.
No.
That wouldn’t be a massive sweeping statement would it? All of them? No.

[Sumud]

Why I am to be burdened with the repsonsibility of your education?

How about Sami Adwan from Bethlehem University. His main interest is in education to foster mutual recognition and co-operation.

"It is important to uproot negative representations and stereotypes, changing terminologies from enmity to amity, from war to peace, from ethnocentrism to diversity and respect of differences. Textbooks have to include the other side and their stories in a context of peace culture,"

"I am ashamed that most Palestinian textbooks devote only a line or two to the Holocaust. It has been difficult for the Palestinians to recognize Jewish suffering, because it would force us Palestinians to feel empathy for them, something that has been psychologically dangerous."

"We tend to see ourselves as a helpless people, caught up in world events too big and too powerful for us.....And because we see ourselves as victims, there is very little reflection or self-criticism."

Let me guess, this isn't exactly what you think he should be saying.

(Now it's 292 posts since we started this topic )

[MGB8]

Reffo,

Sumud is arguing that there are no anti-nationalist Pal Arabs in the WB and Gaza, and that it is illogical for, among 3+ million arabs there, for there to be ANY arabs that hold that contrarian opinion and be outspoken about it. You see, its not the chilling of violence, Sumud says, its that, among 3-3.5 million people, certain opinions just aren't represented - they are, too Sumud, just that invalid - nevermind that other Arabs, in the west (and millions and millions of other people) hold those opinions.

Sumud's point is so weak and laughable - really, quite silly, that you might as well give up. He's a flat-earther. More accurately, he represents a point of view that has little logical or factual support, and little national/ethnic pride, so he is forced to take up and defend these outrageous opinions - to do otherwise would be to admit the enormity of the problems of his people, and that would psychologically crush him. Weak minded, you see.

[Reffo]

Why I am to be burdened with the repsonsibility of your education?

I don't know.......maybe you just took it upon yourself. This whole discussion started when I suggested that as part of a reconciliation process, both the Palestinians and Israelis will have to establish the following success criteria:
Success Criteria

1. When both sides ‘get out of blame mode’ and give credit to each others concessions
2. When both sides prevent any public incitement and create a more positive atmosphere
3. When both sides acknowledge their own historical wrong doings and not just harp on what the other has done wrong
4. When the Palestinians allow their own dissenters to speak up without having to fear violence or death. Even if they are as extreme as Chomsky is against Israel (their mirror image being extreme against the current Palestinian politics)
5. When the Palestinians outlaw, disarm and imprison their extremists and do everything possible to prevent violent attacks (not just half heartedly)

You seem to have taken exception to criteria number 4 and ever since then, you have been trying to re-educate me out of it.

How about Sami Adwan from Bethlehem University. His main interest is in education to foster mutual recognition and co-operation.

Well, he does seem to have his heart in the right place but let me just compare what he says to even what you admitted to and see how much of a dissenter is he:

Palestinians are the ONLY wronged victims

So far so good, both of you seem to acknowledge that Israelis too were wronged.

Palestinians/Arabs did not start any wars, not even in 1947/48

You seem to acknowledge that Palestinians did start some wars (at least the 1947/48 one?). I am not sure that he acknowledges this but I will keep researching.

Egypt and Syria were not the ones who were responsible for the 1967 war

You seem to have acknowledged that Egypt and Syria did have responsibility for the 1967 war. I am not sure that he acknowledges this but I will keep researching.

It is wrong for Israel to retaliate against indiscriminate terrorism against it's civilians.

You admitted that it's not wrong. I am not sure what his position is.

Even though the Arabs/Palestinians openly and publicly threatened to drive the Jews into the sea (in other words: Commit Genocide), they did not mean this and it's just Jewish paranoia.

You admitted that it was not just Jewish paranoia and he too seems to imply that the Palestinians need to recognise the humanity of Jews

Let me guess, this isn't exactly what you think he should be saying.

I am keeping an open mind for now, pending further research.